After hearing that Tom Woods’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, expressed some reservations about an American foreign policy based on world conquest and the mass killing of foreign civilians in order to remake the world in “our” image, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations went berserk. He authored an ignorant hatchet job in the Weekly Neocon Standard online that was simply a shameless smear job filled with lies and personal insults. A little insight into the history of the “Council on Foreign Relations” explains why the maniacally sputtering Boot became so unhinged.
From Professor Ralph Raico’s introduction to the 50th anniversary edition of John T. Flynn’s The Roosevelt Myth (p. xv), first published in 1948:
“A constant target of Flynn’s was the ‘bipartisan foreign policy,’ a hoax which functioned to deprive Americans of any choice on questions of peace or war. As a central source of this ruse he identified the Council on Foreign Relations, noting that both Dean Acheson and John Foster Dulles — secretaries of state from nominally opposed parties — as well as most of the other makers of U.S. foreign policy were members of the New York organization. Palpably a front for business interests, the Council’s aim was a radical transformation of the attitudes of the American people, their conversion to the dogma that our security required that we ‘police the whole world, fight the battles of the whole world, make every country in the world like the United States.'”
It should be no surprise to anyone that a man like Boot who believes we should not care if even 100,000 young Americans (and a million Iraqi civilians)die in Iraq would behave in such a crude and unciviized manner to a critic of his insanity.
8:33 am on March 23, 2005
